Mehar Chand & Ors vs Mehraj-Ud-Din

In this petition under section 561A Cr.P.C. the petitioners pray for quashing the complaint filed against them by the respondent/complainant in

which the court below has issued process under sections 307/34, 311 and 450 RFC. The grounds on which this petition has been based are that

one Mr. A. K. Bansal, relation of the petitioners is a tenant of a shop measuring 16 x 6' situated at Delhi, owned by one Prem Parkash Walia. The

contention of the petitioners is that the said landlord, in an attempt to evict Mr. Bansal, tenant, relation of the petitioners, has started to pressurise

the said tenant to vacate the shop. They have given instances of civil and criminal litigation at the instance of the landlord, by his relations, friends

against the petitioners accused, relations of the tenant, in different courts of the country and the present complaint, sought to be quashed,

entertained by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar and process issued, is one of the chain of litigation to pressurise the tenant to surrender the

possession of the shop.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who vehemently argued that the complaint is baseless, short of definite accusation, making

out no offence against the petitionersaccused, who are residents of Delhi, not even known to the present complainant, who resides in Srinagar, as

per averments made in the complaint. The complaint admittedly does not know the name of the petitioners accused which info mat ion he has

received through one of the witnesses to the complaint. It was also argued that there is no connection of any kind whatsoever between the

complainant and the petitioners/accused.

I have considered the arguments advanced and gone through the petition and contents of the complaint in question.

The petitionersaccused have projected relationship of one Mr. A. K. Bansal, alleged tenant of shop situated at Delhi, owned by one Prem

Prakash Walia, who puts pressure on the said tenant to get him evicted from the shop, regarding which civil litigation is pending before subJudge,

Delhi. The said owner has managed through his friends and relations, complaints of criminal nature against the relations of Mr. A.K. Bansal, tenant

in different courts in different States, including one complaining under sections 323/5C4/506/427 RPC before the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Meerut, and another complaint under sections 323,350,384,419 RPC before Judicial Magistrate (Judge Small Causes Court)

Srinagar, record of later has been called for by this court in proceedings under section 561A CrP.C. which has been lodged by one of the friends

of the landlord. The socalled landlord is dealing in Pashmina, Shawls etc. In that connection he visits Srinagar, having developed business relations

with locals and because of that he has managed to file the present complaint under sections 307/34, 311, 450 RPC, sought to be quashed in this

petition, against the petitioners, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar by his alleged friend, the present complainant. The

petitioneraccused No. 1 is the cousin brother of the wife of Ashok Kumar Bansal, petitioner No. 2 is brotherinlaw, while petitioner No. 3 is the

brother of the said tenant. The complaint is on false and frivolous grounds simply to pressurise the said tenant to surrender the shop in question,

which has given, rise to the present litigation.

The petitioners, to mould the provisions of section 561A Cr. P.C. in their favour, have pressed in the alleged strained relationship of the alleged

landlord (Prem Prakash Walia) and tenant (Ashok Kumar Bansal regarding the shop situated at Delhi, where the landlord and the tenant are

fighting civil litigation. As regards the present complaint against the petitioners, neither the landlord (Prem Prakash Walia), nor the tenant A. K.

Bansal are in picture, who have been kept absent from the scene, but their strained relations are exploited and pressed in this petition. If there is

any litigation between the said landlord and the tenant any where of any nature, that cause will not serve as a ground or circumstance to shadow

the present complaint, where none of them figure directly or indirectly, nor connected by any circumstance or credible record or material in support

of the contention of the petitioners. As a matter of facts it is not the case of the petitioners that the alleged landlord has personally filed any

complaint against the tenant anywhere, not to speak of any complaint by him against the relations of the socalled tenant or relations. The petitioners

have attempted to make strangers as friends of the landlord and referred to the litigation genuine or otherwise, against the relations of the tenant by

said landlord, owner of the shop who, as observed, does not figure any where in black and white in any proceedings, except in civil litigation at

Delhi, that too at the instance of the socalled tenant. To colour the complainant in the complaint pending against the relations of socalled tenant

(A.K. Bansal) there is no circumstance projected before this court to act upon such suggestion except mere expressions not giving foundation for

friendly relationship of the complainants referred even the one in question before this court. It is very difficult to file a false complaint by a friend,

not even relation to expose himself for counter prosecution, than to defend or contest the complaint. In the case in hand particularly regarding

friendly relationship of the complainant and the said landlord, whose name alone has been revealed, short of his father's name, there is nothing to

suggest even an iota of reference to indicate that socalled landlord (Prem Prakash Walia) or the respondent (Complainant) have ever met or ever

seen together or shared any transaction or such shadow suggested regarding the present relation of the landlord except that the land lord carries on

business of Pashmina and Shawls etc, in that connection may have developed many friends and such suggestion can be treated only in negative

rather a positive fact, short of even a single instance of the meeting of the said landlord and the complainant. Thus the petitioners though guardedly

have but all the blame on the said landlord, having failed to establish the friendly relationship of the said landlord and the complainant in order to

rope up the present complainant with the earlier litigation going on between the landlord and the tenant and to connect it with the issue of landlord

to pressurise the said tenant to vacate the shop.

Now coming to the merits of the complaint translated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence on the face of complaint is made

out, the accusation being false and frivolous and the accused belong to Delhi and have not come to Kashmir, nor are even known to the

complainant, who gets identification of the accused from a witness examined by the trialcourt; that warrants bailable have been issued in the first

instance against the petitioneraccused, all the circum stances warrant quashing of the complaint.

Regarding making out of an offence, the trial court has examined complainant and one witness in support of the allegation on oath, set, the law in

motion by issuing the process. Nothing needs to be ob served either way at this stage to prejudice the case of the parties, unless strong primafacie

case is made out regarding absence of ingredients of offences alleged to quash the proceedings. As regards the falsehood of the complaint, it has to

be established, on the face of it, that if the facts are brought to logical end, no guilt will get established regarding issuing of process in the shape of

warrant, it depends on circumstances of each case, the power is discretionary on acquiring satisfaction. The trial court cannot be bound or

condemned why it had so done because issue of process cannot be qualified unless provided under law. There is nothing to show that trial court

has not applied its mind or has no jurisdiction or has proceeded on extraneous or extrajudicial considerations or has acted against the provisions of

law or there was no prima facie substance before the Magistrate to proceed. These events, if visible will amount to abuse of the process of the

court and this court justified to quash the proceedings. The provision of section 561A Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and error if alleged, there must be

strong circumstance to invoke the original jurisdiction of the court to quash what is branded abuse of the process of the court which is only an act

of judicial authority, unless apparently arbitrarily and against the norms of law, will not warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by this court.

Keeping in view the observations and discussions made above, I am of the opinion that no ground has been made out to interfere at this stage to

treat the action of the trial court taking cognizance and issuing process, as abuse of the process of the court. This petition has been based, prima

facie, on unconfirmed facts, mostly extraneous circumstances revealed regarding litigation or strained relations of strangers who do not figure

directly or indirectly apparently with the facts in question. Therefore, the petition does not merit consideration to quash the complaint in question.

Therefore, the application under section 561A Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint under sections 307/34, 311, 450 RPC pending in the court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar against the petitioners is summarily rejected, having no merit. The application be treated dismissed.